SciFi versus fantasy

Disregarding Shatner's acting ability, or lack thereof, star trek has always attempted to explain their concepts with real life science that were being explored at the time they were being filmed, although it does have fantasy elements in it, it is mostly forgivable in my point of view. Star wars on the other hand uses science mostly as a convenient vehicle for story telling, and does not appear to have any real interest in actual advancement of science. In star wars literally thousands years pass and their technological level stays exactly the same.

Click to expand...

Eh? If you're comparing Star Wars and Star Trek, they were in different galaxies and one happened a long time ago, I don't see the issue there. If you're solely speaking of Star Wars I'm not up on the canon, but isn't that people making things up in our time anyway?

Google AdSenseGuest Advertisement

Eh? If you're comparing Star Wars and Star Trek, they were in different galaxies and one happened a long time ago, I don't see the issue there. If you're solely speaking of Star Wars I'm not up on the canon, but isn't that people making things up in our time anyway?

Click to expand...

Yes and when the writers of star wars write their stories they do not really care about the science part in their story

Because it's unrealistic. I like some fantasy, but some goes over the top and is just Tinker Bell on meth. The authors rely on wandwavium to get them out of trouble.

Click to expand...

You mean like Star Trek's technobabble, or the anti-Klingon button?
Personally I like both sci-if and fantasy, depending on mood. The characters have to be believable, people you want to invest time in, and the ground rules for what is and isn't allowed in the setting should be set out somehow and then adhered to, so that there is no wandwavium or anti-Klingon button. But other than that, I see magicks is as just another technology, and vice versa. Unexplained, perhaps, but otherwise (hopefully) working in a consistent way throughout the adventure.

Why distinguish between SciFi and Science Fantasy? Is there a meaning distinction between fiction and fantasy? It seems to come down to what you think might be possible and what you think isn't possible but that's subjective enough to render the distinction useless.

Click to expand...

Science fiction is fiction that relies on specific (and at least somewhat self consistent) science to tell a story. For Star Trek the technologies are things like warp drive and the transporter; for Star Wars they are things like hyperdrive and repulsorlifts.

Fantasy doesn't do that. There may be technology there but it is not central to the story (i.e. the story does not require it) and/or it functions as a deus ex machina; science is brought in at some time to save the hero or create a dilemma for the protagonist, but is not explained, reused or quantified.

In general fantasy uses things like magic or fictional creatures to weave their stories. The His Dark Materials series, for example, is fantasy; there is technology in it (the knife, the bear's abilities as a blacksmith) but it is not explained, reused or indeed discussed much. It just is.

Fantasy doesn't do that. There may be technology there but it is not central to the story (i.e. the story does not require it) and/or it functions as a deus ex machina; science is brought in at some time to save the hero or create a dilemma for the protagonist, but is not explained, reused or quantified

Click to expand...

Lots of times it sounds to me as if SF and Fantasy are split on criteria indistinguishable from high and low quality writing - with the split depending on which category the splitter favors.

The writers themselves have weighed in.

Harlan Ellison, RIP, rejected (in his normal abrasive manner) the label "science fiction" for his stuff - preferring labels such as "fantasy" etc.
Harlan Ellison wrote important, influential scripts and screenplays for the original Outer Limits, Twilight Zone, and Star Trek, along with a thousand or more short stories that are routinely classified as "Science Fiction" and have strongly influenced movies and the like that almost everyone classifies as "science fiction" (The Terminator, for example).

On the other hand, Ursula Le Guin RIP - who has calmly accepted the label "science fiction" for some of her works, in general agreement with everybody else, despite the involvement of technology in many of those writings being distinctly non-technical or even peripheral - has asserted that the Star Wars franchise is not science fiction at all, but sword&sorcery romance, and contrasted it with the work of Philip Dick and Harlan Ellison to make the point.

Note that the "technology" involved in those of Le Guin's works generally agreed to be fantasy - wizards and magic staffs and dragons and the like - is highly technical and central to the story and explained and treated carefully, rigorously, repeatedly. So is - in a different manner - the "technology" of Terry Pratchett's Discworld (normally considered fantasy).

Meanwhile, "fictional creatures" is a slippery category. The entire Art is often referred to as "fiction", and all of its creatures and/or characters "fictional", for a reason.

If they couldn't beam through solid matter there would be no ship-to-ship transporting.

Click to expand...

The argument could be extended, that by some means of flebotinum, the signal only has enough strength to go through so much, and can go into a desert, but not through a ships hull, without being assisted by some reciever.
The flebotinum could be extended, saying there is some type of special particle, which has a customizable half-life, the particle can go through solid matter, but not too deep. And once the half-life of this particle is over, it turns into solid matter. Perhaps some kind of inter-dimensional particle, or "out of phase" or something.

Fantasy doesn't do that. There may be technology there but it is not central to the story (i.e. the story does not require it) and/or it functions as a deus ex machina; science is brought in at some time to save the hero or create a dilemma for the protagonist, but is not explained, reused or quantified.

Click to expand...

Actually, Larry Niven, in his Magic books, attempted to put the lie to that.

His Magic was relatively consistent and logical. It had a source, with limited supply (though ultimately he didn't go into detail about the workings of the source).

Many of his stories have the mechanics of magic as part their core. In one story, he defeated a magic-sword-bearing foe by creating a spinning accelerating disc that had no upper limit to its speed. It used up all the "manna" in the local area, causing the depletion of the magic sword.

This diminishing resource also explains why we have no magic today - all the manna has been depleted - kinda like oil.

One important distinction between reality and fantasy is that in reality, energy isn't a "thing" that could be beamed. There's no such thing as "pure energy", regardless of anything you might hear from a New Age guru. Energy isn't a substance.

I don't think that the big difference between Science Fiction and Fantasy is that science fiction sticks to science that's plausible in contemporary terms. There are a handful of science fiction movies that do, such as the Martian and Contagion. But most often science fiction doesn't. It introduces fictional technology like super-luminal star drives and time machines, that are impossible in present-day terms.

As I see it, the difference between Science Fiction and Fantasy is more about a literary attitude towards the future. Science fiction is about the possibilities that many believe are implicit in progress. Science fiction might be filled with wonders, but it's all portrayed as the products of more advanced scientific understanding, of probing deeper and deeper into nature's secrets.

Fantasy on the other hand, seems to be an expression of deep doubt about progress. It's often anachronistic, imagining stories that take place in pseudo-medieval periods filled with kings, queens, wizards and dragons. Any sense of wonder that fantasy generates seems to revolve around a revival of ceremonial magic, daemons, strange beasts and the threat of dark and malevolent Satan-like forces. If science appears at all in these stories, it's usually as one of the dark and evil forces, an ugly and inhuman magic of clanking machines and stinking pollution that threatens to kill all the magic, dragons and unicorns.

Actually, Larry Niven, in his Magic books, attempted to put the lie to that. His Magic was relatively consistent and logical. It had a source, with limited supply (though ultimately he didn't go into detail about the workings of the source). Many of his stories have the mechanics of magic as part their core. In one story, he defeated a magic-sword-bearing foe by creating a spinning accelerating disc that had no upper limit to its speed. It used up all the "manna" in the local area, causing the depletion of the magic sword.

Click to expand...

Right; that was science fiction. As was Brin's "The Practice Effect" where a magic-like force is used by the protagonist to foil his nemesis.

It doesn't matter what you call the technology; after all, it was a science fiction writer who coined the now-famous phrase "any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic." The important factor is that it uses specific and at least somewhat self consistent science (magic, in this case) to tell a story.

Is it a story about fairies and elves who have a new trick of magic any time they get in a jam, and magic from the last book is forgotten even if it would get them out of a new jam? Fantasy. Is it a story about a sorcerer who spends months refining a spell, learning how it works, learning what its problems and strengths are, then uses it to further some part of the plot? Closer to science fiction than fantasy.

Is it a story about fairies and elves who have a new trick of magic any time they get in a jam, and magic from the last book is forgotten even if it would get them out of a new jam? Fantasy. Is it a story about a sorcerer who spends months refining a spell, learning how it works, learning what its problems and strengths are, then uses it to further some part of the plot? Closer to science fiction than fantasy.

(All IMO, of course.)

Click to expand...

As noted, the criteria seem to be more or less good vs bad writing - with the bad assigned to the genre the evaluator thinks less of.

The examples I posted - Le Guin, Pratchett, Dick, Ellison, et al - have written very carefully and "technically" coherent works that they themselves classify as definitely and no-argument fantasy, and very carefully and "technically" coherent works that they themselves classify as science fiction. LeGuin may be the clearest example of someone who calmly divides their own work into piles (SF, Fantasy, Realist, Miscellaneous, etc) without quibbling too much about it (and winning awards etc in each pile) - she is famous for long ago distinguishing the dialogue, the language, of Elfland from that of Poughkeepsie, and being (in her civil way) scathing of those who approach "genre fiction" without due respect.https://www.goodreads.com/work/quotes/65964-from-elfland-to-poughkeepsie